• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

How would you understand this RCW?

fire suppressor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
870
Location
Kitsap County
imported post

This is ment as a discussion

RCW 9.41.270 – Weapons Apparently Capable
Of Producing Bodily Harm ...

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit,
display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other
cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon
apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a
manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place
that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that
warrants alarm for the safety of other persons

Could you then argue the simple appearance of a person minding there own business but with an exposed firearm in a holster could be in violation of this RCW if someone truly felt afraid of there life by the simple presence of it? and/or could a firearm in a holster also be consider brandishing a weapon?
 

tat2ed_guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
184
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
imported post

fire suppressor wrote:
This is ment as a discussion

RCW 9.41.270 – Weapons Apparently Capable
Of Producing Bodily Harm ...

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit,
display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other
cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon
apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a
manner
, under circumstances, and at a time and place
that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that
warrants alarm for the safety of other persons

Could you then argue the simple appearance of a person minding there own business but with an exposed firearm in a holster could be in violation of this RCW if someone truly felt afraid of there life by the simple presence of it? and/or could a firearm in a holster also be consider brandishing a weapon?
These are the key words.
 

kparker

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,326
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
imported post

I would argue that "manifests an intent" and "warrant", along with the use of AND linking the individual phrases in "in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place", all point to the fact that this particular section is pointing to the "reasonable man" standard even though it doesn't use that exact phrase.

I.e. someone's hoplophobia is not nearly enough to overcome our constitutional right to keep and bear arms under section 24 of the state constitution.
 

kyle.huff

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2009
Messages
47
Location
[no reference to THAT Kyle Huff...], Washington, U
imported post

I agree with NavyLT and the others have said.. I just want to add this, which is unrelated to the verbiage of RCW 9.41.270 -

The Washington State Constitution Article I Section 24 says:

"The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

link: http://www.leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Constitution.htm

Now, the State of Washington says you can carry a firearm - but the state also says you cannot conceal your firearm unless you have a permit. So, if you cannot openly carry your firearm - and you can only hide it with a permit, in my opinion that violates the Washington State Constitution. You no longer have a right to bare arms if RCW 9.41.270 meant you cannot carry a holstered firearm in open view.

That is just my opinion though, and I'm not a lawyer. Also, it has been said that I have been wrong in the past.. I don't recall this event.. but, I guess it COULD have happened.. =c )
 

FMCDH

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
2,037
Location
St. Louis, MO
imported post

As another vote to close this discussion once again, I would tend to agree with Navy LT on this.

By chance, and at this moment, there is a local case (Clark County) that is being fought in court on this very charge, and it is due to go before a judge with petition for dismissal on June 15th.

You may want to follow it...

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=19970&forum_id=55&jump_to=448901#p448901

This case is a classic example of how .270 is NOT suppose to be applied, but the OP has been fighting it for nearly 6 months now. :X
 

5jeffro7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
172
Location
Mountlake Terrace, Washington, USA
imported post

a couple interesting citations for you to research....

State v. Casad...although unpublished & therefore unquotable in curt, they've ruled that the mere shock of someone seeing a person with a holstered weapon is not enough to fulfil the "warrant alarm" portion of .270

Also in the L.E. training bulletins:

State v. Taylor 2003

State v. Spencer 1994

the above cases were directly cited by Bellevue PD in their training bulletin (see compilation of training bulletins, page 2, middle column)



hopefully this can end this discussion :banghead:
 

FMCDH

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
2,037
Location
St. Louis, MO
imported post

Machoduck wrote:
I tried to look at .270 as carefully as possible in this thread. The more you consider the different aspects of the law, the better you will understand its application ( and misapplication ).

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/26173.html

MD
It was a good examination Machoduck, I remember when you first posted it.

People better have their legal-foo going strong when they read it however. ;)
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

I see opening this discussion, again, as:

1.gif




Until the wording in the law is changed, nobody will truly be able to interpret it. Why not just add "this does not apply to any holstered firearm carried by a person not otherwise prohibited from doing so."?




Sorry, I had to get my two whacks in.
 

bugly

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2009
Messages
310
Location
Taco-Ma, Washington, USA
imported post

So, if a holstered weapon warrants alarm, then does that mean the same person being scared by your gun will have to call a MWAG on the officer that shows up?
Ridiculous, isn't it?
All these "laws" do is give an "out" for someone to misinterpret them, this way, nothing is fully understood by anyone and the legal system has job security.
:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate
 

Machoduck

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
566
Location
Covington, WA & Keenesburg, CO
imported post

amlevin, your two whacks are more than welcome. Your suggestion for a change is good but until your change is adopted, I'm approaching the interpretation as best I can. What induced me to finally examine the ins and outs of .270 was the experience of one of our members, I can't recall at the moment who, who was "interviewed" by the Bellevue cops, one of whose Lt. came up with some narishkeit about IWB holsters being "concealed". Hence the appendix listing what's NOT included in .270.

As a matter of fact, my whole point in analyzing .270 was to offer a silver cross for our people to show to the uneducated cop. No disrespect intended because when his own academy gives out false info, what's a cop to believe? I believe this to be consistent with our aim of education of both the public and the police.

MD
 

Machoduck

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
566
Location
Covington, WA & Keenesburg, CO
imported post

fmcdh, does one go to Chinatown to find legal foo? :lol:

My experience on the street has been that if my mojo (aka legal foo) is stronger than the cops, he backs off, and conversely. This should not be a surprise to anyone. We have studied intently a small area of the law, where the patrol cop has to look at a wide range of behaviors and their possible illegality.

MD
 
Top